A descriptive investigation of alarm activation in a critical care setting.
Van Nguyen, Brendan MacDonald, Anthony Cignarella and 1 others
PMID 39995316WHAT IT FOUND
Monitoring alarms generated many auditory alerts across cardiac and intensive care units, with clinical alarms making up most counted alerts.
The ICU had fewer alerts than cardiac units, possibly reflecting settings, deactivations and staffing.
Key findings
01Most counted alarms were clinical rather than technical.
02Most technical alarms were caused by ECG leads off.
03The ICU had fewer alarms per patient and per bed day than the cardiac units.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study counted only patient-monitor alarms, not alarms from ventilators, infusion pumps, dialysis machines or other devices, so it may underestimate the total alarm burden. It was retrospective and could not determine which alarms were true, false, actionable or non-actionable, or what staff did in response. It did not measure alarm fatigue directly among staff, patients or visitors. It did not collect illness severity, so comparisons between units cannot be explained by acuity alone. It was conducted in a highly specialized metropolitan hospital, so results may not generalise to other settings.
Declared interests
The study was funded by The Alfred Health, whose data were used. Some authors were previous employees at The Alfred Health; the authors state this did not affect analysis.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the alarm patterns as proof of alarm fatigue or patient harm, because the study could not tell which alarms were true, false or actionable and did not survey staff or patients.